Show transcript
Screenshot of a Tumblr post by indigosfindings:
imagine if someone just like started addressing you as Dipshit, like youre just talking about your day & they say "no way Dipshit, that's crazy." and then maybe you say to them that you would prefer not to be addressed as Dipshit & their response is "well in my major metropolitan area 'Dipshit' is not considered an insult. im not saying i think youre stupid when i call you Dipshit, i call my mom dipshit all the time" so you say Thats cool but please dont call Me that. and then they just repeat that it's something they say daily, they call all of their best friends & lovers dipshits & are called dipshit in return. "my grandma calls me dipshit at the dinner table, it doesnt mean anything." so you say Yes i understand that your friends & grandma arent bothered by being called Dipshit but i am, & i would prefer if you didnt address me as that. and they say "it's literally not possible for me to stop calling you dipshit, and it's not reasonable for you to ask me to, dipshit." anyway this post is about nothing in particular
Yes, it does break down in a hypothetical situation like the one you describe. But in reality and communication there always will be grey areas where shoe box thinking does not work out in a harmonic way. The acceptable outcome could be that person A simply dislikes person B for not respecting his/her wish and person B is okay with being disliked. Both agree to not enact policies based on their wishes. For me it seems in reality this often fails because of ambiguity intolerance.